In a case of apparent first impression, U.S. District Court Judge Alan S. Gold recently held in In re Wellington Vision, Inc., No. 06-80446, __ B.R. ___, 2007 WL 762398 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2007), that a franchisee in chapter 11 cannot assume (i.e., retain) a franchise agreement that grants a nonexclusive trademark license, leaving the franchisor free to terminate the agreement.

In a groundbreaking, and somewhat surprising decision, the Delaware Supreme Court recently held that creditors of a company that is either in the zone of insolvency or actually insolvent cannot, as a matter of law, directly sue directors of the company for breaches of the directors’ fiduciary duties.

In the ongoing bankruptcy action involving the Congoleum Corporation (Congoleum), the bankruptcy court refused to approve a settlement and policy buyback between Congoleum and one of its insurers, ruling that the lack of creditor support for the settlement and the lack of evidence regarding the volume and type of claims covered by the settlement precluded the court's ability to approve the settlement. In re Congoleum Corporation, No. 03-51524 (Bankr. D.N.J. May 11, 2004).

In an April 24, 2007 order, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted certain insurers' motion for leave to pursue a coverage action against the debtor, Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., in New York state court regarding the debtor's asbestos liability. In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., No. 01-10578 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 24, 2007). The insurer had filed a declaratory judgment action in New York state court against the debtor. In response, the debtor filed an identical action in New Jersey state court.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the pre-packaged bankruptcy plan presented by the debtors and asbestos claims representatives. In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524, 2007 WL 328694 (Bankr. D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2007). In addition, the court rejected a plan proposed by a group of insurers. In re Congoleum Corp., No. 03-51524, 2007 WL 328700 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 1, 2007).

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a suit by the shareholders and creditors of Vlasic Foods International, Inc., a former Campbell Soup subsidiary that had been “spun out” of the parent. The case, VFB, LLC v. Campbell Soup Co. (March 30, 2007), upholds the broad discretion of trial courts to determine valuation issues in the context of corporate transactions and, more specifi cally, gives great weight to market capitalization as a measure of value.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts has denied injunctive relief requested by two bankruptcy trustees seeking to stay the prosecution and settlement of shareholder actions proceeding against various former officers and directors of a bankrupt corporation. In re Enivid, 2007 WL 806627 (Bankr. D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2007).

On March 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., case docket no. 127 S.Ct. 1199 (2007), that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from obtaining attorney’s fees authorized by a valid prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

In Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2d Cir. 2007), the Second Circuit held that the most important factor for a bankruptcy court to consider in approving a pre-plan settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 is whether the settlement’s distribution scheme complies with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. Prior to this ruling, courts in the Second Circuit generally considered the following factors when approving settlement agreements:

The ability to borrow money during the course of a bankruptcy case is an important tool available to a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession (“DIP”). Often times, the debtor’s most logical choice for a lender is one with an existing pre-bankruptcy relationship with the debtor. As a condition to making new loans, however, lenders commonly require the debtor to waive its right to pursue avoidance or lender liability actions against the lender based upon pre-bankruptcy events.